Personalizing the design of computer-based instruction to enhance learning

Pillay, Hitendra K., Boles, Wageeh W., & Raj, Leonard (1998) Personalizing the design of computer-based instruction to enhance learning. A L T - J, 6(2), pp. 17-31.

[img] Published Version (PDF 1MB)
Administrators only | Request a copy from author

View at publisher


This paper reports two studies designed to investigate the effect on learning outcomes of matching individuals' preferred cognitive styles to computer-based instructional (CBI) material. Study 1 considered the styles individually as Verbalizer, Imager, Wholist and Analytic. Study 2 considered the bi-dimensional nature of cognitive styles in order to assess the full ramification of cognitive styles on learning: Analytic/Imager, Analytic/ Verbalizer, Wholist/Imager and the Wholist/Verbalizer. The mix of images and text, the nature of the text material, use of advance organizers and proximity of information to facilitate meaningful connections between various pieces of information were some of the considerations in the design of the CBI material. In a quasi-experimental format, students' cognitive styles were analysed by Cognitive Style Analysis (CSA) software. On the basis of the CSA result, the system defaulted students to either matched or mismatched CBI material by alternating between the two formats. The instructional material had a learning and a test phase. Learning outcome was tested on recall, labelling, explanation and problem-solving tasks. Comparison of the matched and mismatched instruction did not indicate significant difference between the groups, but the consistently better performance by the matched group suggests potential for further investigations where the limitations cited in this paper are eliminated. The result did indicate a significant difference between the four cognitive styles with the Wholist/Verbalizer group performing better then all other cognitive styles. Analysing the difference between cognitive styles on individual test tasks indicated significant difference on recall, labelling and explanation, suggesting that certain test tasks may suit certain cognitive styles.

Impact and interest:

Citation counts are sourced monthly from Scopus and Web of Science® citation databases.

These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.

Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.

ID Code: 40300
Item Type: Journal Article
Refereed: Yes
DOI: 10.1080/0968776980060203
ISSN: 0968-7769
Divisions: Current > Schools > School of Cultural & Professional Learning
Past > QUT Faculties & Divisions > Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering
Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Education
Past > Schools > School of Engineering Systems
Copyright Owner: Copyright 1998 Taylor & Francis.
Deposited On: 14 Mar 2011 01:21
Last Modified: 25 Mar 2013 08:22

Export: EndNote | Dublin Core | BibTeX

Repository Staff Only: item control page